On The Morality Of The Fed

Tyler Durden's picture

Via The Baupost Group:

"Finally, we must question the morality of Fed programs that trick people (as if they were Pavlov's dogs) into behaviors that are adverse to their own long-term best interest. What kind of government entity cajoles savers to spend, when years of under-saving and over-spending have left the consumer in terrible shape? What kind of entity tricks its citizens into paying higher and higher prices to buy stocks? What kind of entity drives the return on retiree's savings to zero for seven years (2008-2015 and counting) in order to rescue poorly managed banks? Not the kind that should play this large a role in the economy."




"An environment where financial crises are seen to be a regular part of the landscape is one where people might actually take more precautions. People would maintain a margin of safety in all their decisions, investment and otherwise, regulations would be well thought out and diligently enforced, and the unscrupulous and the incompetent would quickly fail and disappear from the scene. Modern day attempts to abolish failure only serve to ensure it, as moral hazard - the likelihood that people's behavior changes in response to artificial supports or guarantees - surges. Attempts to prevent or wish away future crises only make them more likely. Only by allowing, even welcoming, episodic failure do we have a chance of reducing the likelihood and magnitude of future financial crises."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Yen Cross's picture

U bend over> I insert debt/

Anusocracy's picture

We need to raise the mortality rate of the Fed to 100%.

Yen Cross's picture

 I think Knuckles layed out the Feds. mandate pretty well yesterday.?  

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Rare footage of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's childhood has recently surfaced.

He hasn't changed!!!

This is truly an extraordinary find!


Hat Tip Daily Paul.

Yen Cross's picture

Little Rascals. That made my day! thanks Micheal. ( Thank God he didn't have access to a helicopter)

taxpayer102's picture


Farrakhan Exposes the Federal Reserve and international bankers, 1995


macholatte's picture



Yes, of course! It was Farrakhan!  

And all this time I thought it was was G Edward Griffin.


chumbawamba's picture

I couldn't be bothered to track down where these excerpts came from to determine if there is a broader context  that might make these comments redundant, but all I can say is, wow, how stupid are these people?

Do they think the Fed's policies came about by accident?  Do they really think that the same people who brought us such hits as the Federal Reserve, the Civil War, the American Revolution, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. are so stupid? That the rulers of this world are so inept?

There is no such thing as an "economic crisis". There are only natural disasters or adverse weather patterns, and manipulation of an economy through war, sabotage, or other nefarious influences.  Period.

Their latest master manipulation is the so-called "fiscal cliff".



I am Chumbawamba.

macholatte's picture
Seth Klarman Goes Nuts On The Fed In His Latest Investor Letter





John D. Rockefeller made his initial fortune in oil but soon gravitated into banking and finance. His entry into the field was not welcomed by Morgan, and they became fierce competitors. Eventually, they decided to minimize their competition by entering into joint ventures. In the end, they worked together to create a national banking cartel called the Federal Reserve System.

— G. Edward Griffin; The Creature From Jekyll Island

Michaelwiseguy's picture

This is the total explanation of every intricate detail of all life and everything physical, rediscovered by Marco Rodin.

This tells you why everything is and how everything is.

This shows you Where the God Spirit Energy within your DNA exists.

There are many avenues and aspects of this explanation on Youtube. I ask you to explore it for yourself, especially if you don't get it and can't sit thru this old 1997 video. Rodin is basically taking you from Kindergarten thru PHD in this video. If you can stand to get to 3:20:00 of viewing in this video, you will be blown away.

Vortex Based Mathematics - Marko Rodin


When you put this vortex mathematics into practical application, you double the amount of energy going out than you're putting in. In other words the margin is 100%.

zhandax's picture

    John D. Rockefeller made his initial fortune in oil but soon gravitated into banking and finance. His entry into the field was not welcomed by Morgan, and they became fierce competitors. Eventually, they decided to minimize their competition by entering into joint ventures. In the end, they worked together to create a national banking cartel called the Federal Reserve System.

    — G. Edward Griffin; The Creature From Jekyll Island

You left out medicine....  http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Your-Doctor-Prescribes-Pharmaceutical-Drug...

Here is what medicine looked like before....   http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/medical.html

And G. Edward Grifin also did a speech on this subject, but what I found was a transcript including the introductions, and that did not convey the point quickly enough.

Hulk's picture

Well done Sir !!!

He is Chumbawamba...

Mentaliusanything's picture

And where has the Chum been. I know a bender can last a while but..... man Im never getting out on the town with you. you one sick puppy... but I did miss your take on things. You da man

Race Car Driver's picture

> There is no such thing as an "economic crisis". There are only natural disasters or adverse weather patterns, and manipulation of an economy through war, sabotage, or other nefarious influences.  Period.


+1 QFT

There wouldn't be any 'crisis' if we used real, tangible money and not virtual digits that some can create out of thin air; but the rest of us have to bust or sell our asses to aquire.


caconhma's picture

There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics

October 12, 2012  |  



 It’s Nobel Prize season again. News reports are coming out each day sharing the name of the illustrious winner of the various categories — Science, Literature, etc. But there’s one of the prizes that’s a little different. Well, that’s putting it lightly… you see, the Nobel Prize in Economics is not a real Nobel. It wasn’t created by Alfred Nobel. It’s not even called a “Nobel Prize,” no matter what the press reports say.


The five real Nobel Prizes—physics, chemistry, literature, peace, and medicine/physiology—were set up in the will left by the dynamite magnate when he died in 1895. The economics prize is a bit different. It was created by Sweden’s Central Bank in 1969, nearly 75 years later. The award’s real name is the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.” It was not established by Nobel, but supposedly in memory of Nobel. It’s a ruse and a PR trick, and I mean that literally. And it was done completely against the wishes of the Nobel familly. 

Sweden’s Central Bank quietly snuck it in with all the other Nobel Prizes to give free-market economics for the 1% credibility. One of the Federal Reserve banks explained it succinctly, “Few realize, especially outside of economists, that the prize in economics is not an “official” Nobel. . . . The award for economics came almost 70 years later—bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden’s 300th anniversary.” Yes, you read that right: “a marketing ploy.”


“The Economics Prize has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it were a Nobel Prize. But it’s a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation,” Nobel’s great great nephew Peter Nobel told AFP in 2005, adding that “It’s most often awarded to stock market speculators .... There is nothing to indicate that [Alfred Nobel] would have wanted such a prize.”


Members of the Nobel family are among the harshest, most persistent critics of the economics prize, and members of the family have repeatedly called for the prize to be abolished or renamed. In 2001, on the 100th anniversery of the Nobel Prizes, four family members published a letter in the Swedish paper Svenska Dagbladet, arguing that the economics prize degrades and cheapens the real Nobel Prizes. They aren’t the only ones.


Scientists never had much respect for the new economic Nobel prize. In fact, a scientist who headed Nixon’s Science Advisory Committee in 1969, was shocked to learn that economists were even allowed on stage to accept their award with the real Nobel laureates. He was incredulous: “You mean they sat on the platform with you?”


That hatred continues to simmer below the surface, and periodically breaks through and makes itself known.  Most recently, in 2004, three prominent Swedish scientists and members of the Nobel committee published an open letter in a Swedish newspaper savaging the fraudulent “scientific” credentials of the Swedish Central Bank Prize in Economics. “The economics prize diminishes the value of the other Nobel prizes. If the prize is to be kept, it must be broadened in scope and be disassociated with Nobel,” they wrote in the letter, arguing that achievements of most of the economists who win the prize are so abstract and disconnected from the real world as to utterly meaningless.


The question is: Why would a prize that draws so much hatred and negativity from the scientific community be added to the Nobel roster so late in the game? And why economics? To answer that question we have to go back to Sweden in the 1960s.


Around the time the prize was created, Sweden’s banking and business interests were busy trying to ram through various so-called "free-market" economic reforms. Their big objective at the time was to loosen political oversight and control over the country’s central bank.


According to Philip Mirowski, a professor at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in the history of economics, the “Bank of Sweden was trying to become more independent of democratic accountability in the late 60s, and there was a big political dispute in Sweden as to whether the bank could have effective political independence. In order to support that position, the bank needed to claim that it had a kind of scientific credibility that was not grounded in political support.”


Promoters of central bank independence couched their arguments in the obscure language of neoclassical economic theory of market efficiency. The problem was that few people in Sweden took their neoclassical babble very seriously, and saw their plan for central bank independence for what it was: an attempt to transfer control over economic matters from democratically elected government and place into the hands of big business interests, giving them a free hand in running Sweden’s economy without pesky interference from labor unions, voters and elected officials.


And that’s where the Swedish Central Bank Prize in Economic Sciences came in.

The details of how the deal went down are still very murky. What is known is that in 1969 Sweden’s central bank used the pretense of its 300th anniversary to push through an independent prize in “economic science” in memory of Alfred Nobel, and closely link it with the original Nobel Prize awards. The name was a bit longer, the medals looked a little different and the award money did not come from Nobel, but in every other way it was hard to tell the two apart. To ensure the prize would be awarded to the right economists, the bank managed to install a rightwing Swedish economist named Assar Lindbeck, who had ties to University of Chicago, to oversee the awards committee and keep him there for more than three decades. (Lindbeck’s famous free-market oneliner is:  “In many cases, rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”)


For the first few years, the Swedish Central Bank Prize in Economics went to fairly mainstream and maybe even semi-respectable economists. But after establishing the award as credible and serious, the prizes took a hard turn to the right.


Over the next decade, the prize was awarded to the most fanatical supporters of theories that concentrated wealth among the top 1% of industrialized society of our time.


In 1974, five years after the prize was first created, it was awarded to Friedrich Hayek, one the leading "laissez-faire" -- enrich the rich -- economists of the 20th century and the godfather of neoclassical economics. Milton Friedman, who was at the University of Chicago with Hayek, was not far behind. He won the prize just two years later, in 1976.


Both Hayek and Friedman were huge supporters of the political independence of central banks. In fact, they built their careers on bashing government intervention in economic matters. Hayek developed a whole business cycle theory that blamed government and government-controlled banking systems  for all economic ills. He also equated all government intervention will inevitably lead to totalitarianism. Friedman with a whole new subsection of neoclassical economics called “Monetarism” that had a scientific formula worked out, specifying exactly how much money central bankers needed to keep floating around in the economy to keep inflation low and unemployment high enough to keep big business happy. No democratic control over banking policies needed, just let the free-markets do its thing!  The Swedish central bankers couldn’t get better spokesmen for their cause.


But Hayek and Friedman’s usefulness went way beyond Sweden.


At the time of the prizes, neoclassical economics were not fully accepted by the media and political establishment. But the Nobel Prize changed all that.

What started as a project to help the Bank of Sweden achieve political independence, ended up boosting the credibility of the most regressive strains of free-market economics, and paving the way for widespread acceptance of libertarian ideology.


Take Hayek: Before he won the award, it looked like Hayek was washed up. His career as an economist was essentially over. He was considered a quack and fraud by contemporary economists, he had spent the 50s and 60s in academic obscurity, preaching the gospel of free markets and economic darwinism while on the payroll of ultra-rightwing American billionaires. Hayek had powerful backers, but was out on the fringes of academic credibility.


But that all changed as soon as he won the prize in 1974. All of a sudden his ideas were being talked about. Hayek was a celebrity. He appeared as a star guest on NBC’sMeet the Press, newspapers across the country printed his photographs and treated his economic mumblings about the need to have high unemployment in order to pay off past inflation sins as if they were divine revelations. His Road to Serfdom hit the best-seller list. Margret Thatcher was waving around his books in public, saying “this is what we believe.” He was back on top like never before, and it was all because of the fake Nobel Prize created by Sweden’s Central Bank.


Billionaire Charles Koch brought Hayek out for an extended victory tour of the United States, and had Hayek spend the summer as a resident scholar at his Institute for Humane Studies. Charles, a shrewd businessman, quickly put the old man to good use, tapping Hayek’s mainstream cred to set up and underwrite Cato Institute in 1974 (it was called the Charles Koch Foundation until 1977), a libertarian thinktank based on Hayek’s ideas. Even today, Cato Institute pays homage to the Swedish Central Bank Prize’s role in the mainstreaming of Hayek’s ideas and Hayek’s influence on the outfit:


The first libertarian to receive the Nobel Prize was F.A. Hayek in 1974. In the years leading up to the prize announcement, Hayek had reached a professional and personal nadir. Unable to maintain an appointment in the United States, Hayek had returned to Austria to take up a position at the University of Salzburg, Austria. With the announcement of the prize in 1974, however, Hayek’s work, and the fortune of Austrian economics, took a remarkable turn.


Hayek’s influence on Cato is profound. Two of Cato’s first books were by Hayek: A Tiger by the Tail: The Keynesian Legacy of Inflation & Unemployment and Monetary Policy: Government as Generator of the “Business Cycle.” Perhaps more than any other intellectual in the twentieth century, Hayek has inspired Cato and its researchers to develop policies that ensure a free society. When Cato moved into its current location in 1992, its auditorium was named in Hayek’s honor.

Friedman’s Nobel Prize had a similar impact. After getting the prize in 1976, Friedman wrote a best-seller, got his own 10-part PBS series Free to Choose and became President Ronald Reagan’s economic advisor, where he had a chance to put the society-crushing policies he developed in Chile under Pinochet.


Friedman would spend the rest of his time denying it, but he was deeply involved and invested in the Pinochet’s totalitarian-corporate  economic experiment. Chilean economist Orlando Letelier published an article in The Nation in 1976 outing Milton Friedman as the  “intellectual architect and unofficial adviser for the team of economists now running the Chilean economy” on behalf of foreign corporations. A month later Letelier was assassinated in D.C. by Chilean secret police using a car bomb.


Friedman’s monetary theory was used by Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Paul Volcker to restrict the money supply, plunging American into a deep recession, doubling the unemployment rate and had the added bonus of getting Reagan elected President. . . . And Hayek and Friedman were just the beginning.


For instance, in 1997 two economists won an award for their derivative risk models that minimized risk, just before the derivatives would explode in the 2000s real estate bubble.

NidStyles's picture

While I have my own disagreements with Hayek's work, he certainly was not a Libertarian, nor was he a big government Economist. His comments on the Central Bank were merely on how it would more efficiently. He openly denounced the Central Banks of England and the US during his time.

Hayek was also dead well before 1974, so I have no idea where that nonsense came from. I find it interesting that you state Milton Friedman built his work off of Hayek. That could not be further from the truth. Friedman built his work on top of Keynes, and used the language of the Rothbardians to disguise it.

In essence, I see that you are following thw whole Leninist policy of defaming any efforts that are counter to your argument. Most people may not be aware that Alternet is a Communist collective on the internet.

I will not warrant the rest of that nonsense with comment, it's mostly sophostic bullshit. 

Bob's picture


The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1974 Prize for Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel to

Professor Gunnar Myrdal and Professor Friedrich von Hayek


NidStyles's picture

Great now you are on the page we were in 1974. It doesn't change my comment. Hayek was dead by the time they gave him the award, and the only reason they gave the award is because Mises died the year before. 

If half of you knew the history behind the BS you spread teaching you economics would be that much easier. That is not the case though and we are let here struggling and dealing with the shear amount of misinformation and outright lies spread  the rest of you. Economics is not a miracle cure for anything, but everyone likes to blame it for not working, or simply not understand what it is actually for..  

AlaricBalth's picture

From the Department of Economic Analysis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, a study which shows a causal relationship between the study of economics and lying. It begins to confirm that which ZHers already knew. So the next time you read of an economic forecast which seems a bit unrealistic, consider the source.

"Do Economists Lie More?"
Raúl López-Pérez* and Eli Spiegelman†

Abstract: Recent experimental evidence suggests that some people dislike telling lies, and tell the truth even at a cost. We use experiments as well to study the socio-demographic covariates of such lie aversion, and find gender and religiosity to be without predictive value. However, subjects’ major is predictive: Business and Economics (B&E) subjects lie significantly more frequently than other majors. This is true even after controlling for subjects’ beliefs about the overall rate of deception, which predict behavior very well: Although B&E subjects expect most others to lie in our decision problem, the effect of major remains. An instrumental variables analysis suggests that the effect is not simply one of selection: It seems that studying B&E has a causal impact on behavior.


Umh's picture

Interesting read, but is it really about honesty or is it about the ability to seperate the reality of what's happening from the presentation that accompany it.


P. S. I do agree that people who think everyone else is doing it ( being dishonest ) tend to be amoung the least honest people.



AnAnonymous's picture

Another 'american' study. And this one about telling truth and lying.

So comical.

AlaricBalth's picture

Actually the study originated in Spain.
Ni xiang yige laizi zhongguo ma?

Downtoolong's picture

Too late. 100% of zero = zero.

Tom_333's picture

Morality is for loosers.All of your money is mine.

cranky-old-geezer's picture



All of your money is mine.

You summed up the entire article in one sentence.

Yes, all our "money" belongs to the Fed.  Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) issued by the Fed belong to the Fed.

Not the government.   The federal government has to borrow FRNs from the Fed.  Yes the government prints FRNs for the Fed, but they belong to the Fed.  The government has to turn right around and borrow them back from the Fed.

But FRNs aren't money.  They don't fit the legal definition of money. 

FRNs are DERIVATIVES.   A gambling bet on the underlying value of something else.  That's what a derivative is.

But FRNs don't even qualify as derivatives, because they're not tied to the value of anything you can quantify and measure. 

FRNs really are like Monopoly money.  Just a game.   A game the government has imposed on America by law.  The government passed laws saying corporations must accept FRNs as payment if offered,  employers must pay employees in FRNs, taxes must be paid in FRNs, etc.

But FRNs belong to the Fed, so the Fed can impose requirements on use of their FRNs, like a "fee" for using them, otherwise known as the "federal income tax", which is paid to the Fed, not the US govt. 

IRS is an agency of the Fed, not the US govt.  There's no constitutional limitation on the IRS.  They can tax use of FRNs any way they wana tax it, however much they wana tax it.

Yes, congress abdicated its constitutional authority over money, turning it over to the Fed in 1913.

Constitution still says gold and silver are money in America.  It's still right there in the Constitution, it hasn't changed.  

But the Constitution only applies to the federal government.  It doesn't apply to the Fed.  Fed isn't bound by the Constitution.  Fed can do anything they want. 

Fed isn't the problem.  Federal government is the problem.  Congress is the problem.  Turning over their Constitutional control of money to the Fed is the problem.

Fed has taken all the gold & silver from the government for themselves, and issued worthless pieces of paper for Americans to use as "money".   They're worthless because they're not tied to anything tangible, they're not redeemable for anything tangible, they're not backed by anything tangible.

Tyler(s) seem to think they're backed by what's on the asset side of Fed's balance sheet.

It's nonsense.  There's no rule nor law anywhere saying that.  It's just a belief.   A false belief.

FRNs aren't backed by anything. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Zip.

Imagine that.  The world reserve currency is just make-believe Monoply money. 

Fed has the entire world playing their Monoply game now.

Mentaliusanything's picture

A bit like credit cards..... who gave the banks the righ to break the Law and Counterfeit outside the Federal reserve.

This shit is so wrong it bends the mind.(whats left of it)

marathonman's picture

Honey badger don't give a shit.  Honey badger just takes what he wants.

Winston Churchill's picture

Morality at the Fed.Honest banks.Selfless politicians.

Oxymorons all.

Harbanger's picture

"U bend over> I insert debt" That's the spanish game of teto.  I don't miss a beat dude, that's why I make the big bucks :)

francis_sawyer's picture

It's Tricky to Rock a Rhyme that's Right on Time... It's Tricky....


~ Run DMC

Harbanger's picture

I love Rock Box, but here's the lyric that explains what needs to happen with our "no failure" keynesian monetary policies.

"We don't need no water—Let the motherfucker burn!"

Cursive's picture

Allow a failure?  Unimaginable!  Not to mention that the failure has been caused, aided and abetted by bankers.

Harbanger's picture

Our dear Politicians and their legislations have nothing to do with it.  That's why we need new and improved politicos to give us hope.  Suckers!

tango's picture

They can't allow failure or that would be an admission that their whole philosophy is a lie.  It's that simple. There are "experts" who would (much) rather bring the nation to its knees than admit error. 

Aided and abetted by bankers? I always want to ask, "Did they operate in a vaccuum?"  The public repeatedly reelects the same politicians who set up (and perpetuated) this vast scheme of "making money" without producing a product or service, i.e Kerry and BFF, AIG.  We are not blameless. 

ebworthen's picture

The FED is ensuring societal collapse in the U.S.A. for the sake of their banking overlords.

The FED is a terrorist kabal of economic alchemist banker lackeys.

End the FED.

chumbawamba's picture

End the Fed?  Really?

Do you have a bank account?  A credit card?  A mortgage?

It's one thing to exclaim, "END THE FED", it's quite another to call your wife a dirty whore as you cum all over her face.

Loose your own chains first, slave.

I am Chumbawamba.

Yen Cross's picture

Money shots & Ass rapings are two different animals entirely/

tango's picture

But WHY would the FED destroy America for the sake of a few bankers.  What good is a nation with 312 million serfs and a few bankers? Do they really believe they would be safe (espec from the more distubed posters here), well fed or that this is a longterm solution? It makes no sense.

The FED is simply doing what it's always done and when it doesn't work they have no other option but to repeat what has failed.  Acknowledging that manipulating rates, creating phony demand, bubbles and bursts would be to admit their entire philosophy has been wrong so they keep on keeping on.  What's depressing is that we have arrived at this current state not through conspiracies or grand plans but inept bumbling. 

economics9698's picture

The tribe has no national borders or alliances.  They do not care if the USA falls into chaos.  They are parasites that move from host to host.  Their next mark will be the Far East, if those governments are stupid enough to allow them to operate over there.

ball-and-chain's picture

Bernanke is a sexy beast.

You people are playa haters.

He squirts milk from his delicious man-boobs, and the good folks at J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs can eat again.

Who could ask for more?  Those poverty-striken wretches need much love.

Gentle Ben is a caring soul.

In fact, I want Mr. Bernanke to come to my house just so he can have his way with my mother and sister.

That's how much I love the man.



Rusty Diggins's picture

Benny was my favorite cabin boy in pirate training camp.... ummmmm

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Buying physical gold is a great partial way to fight Fed immorality.

And think for yourselves, be open to others' ideas, but weigh them.

Yen Cross's picture

 And some silver. I don't want to quarter those Maple Leafs at the local food bank. I want some change for my bling/

mvsjcl's picture

If you can find some silver. Look at the available inventories of Tulvig, Gainsville Coin, Ampex,.... Low as a banker's morals.

Yen Cross's picture

 Native American concho belts have (1) pound of silver/  pre 1980

I'll send the pics of a few I have on hand ass master. Fucking douchebag wanabe fuckwad

  Why are you assclowns junking me? If I own 15.8333 troy ounces of silverx2 what's the big deal?


  You libtards amaze me/